Attracting Females to STEM/FIRST

[sammyjalex]

Let's bring up what might be a sore subject.

A number of studies http://advances.asee.org/wp-content/...ssue02-p11.pdf show through qualitative survey and observation that girls demonstrate more consistently positive attitudes toward science and technology when applications demonstrate the social value of the field - the fight against disease, geriatric care, managing natural disasters, or modifying the food we eat. The reasoning is consistently used to discuss the rising numbers of women in biology, environmental science, and even biomedical engineering as opposed to the stagnantly low numbers in physics, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc. More recently, we are seeing computer science join the former category.

The example sees girls demonstrate more confidence and more positive attitudes than boys and even draws upon a handful of quantitative measures through which a sample of girls outperform boys.

The examples I chose might sound familiar - these are recent FLL challenges. We lose most girls after FLL. Coincidentally, our structure also changes dramatically in the move from FLL to FTC/FRC, from one in which research into and presentation of "real-world problems" take center-stage alongside the robot, to one in which we pull our hair out over robot performance. (Yes, I know the actual chronology of the programs' creation)

Could this shift be a contributing factor for our struggle keeping girls on our teams? Can we isolate the issue as the prominence of the robot game or the lack of "social change-motivated projects"?

There are a handful of teams that I know have used engineering to address social change and to build beneficial products for their communities in the off-season. I would love to hear from representatives from these teams (842 and the DREAM Act Campaign, 2158 and the knee brace project, 1712 and the mobile inspiration project). Do you have more success keeping the women on your team over teams that place more focus on robot iteration and the robot game?

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by sammyjalex

Let's bring up what might be a sore subject.

A number of studies http://advances.asee.org/wp-content/...ssue02-p11.pdf

I don't quiet see why this is a sore point ? Social relevance is a huge positive factor, well supported by studies. Trying to get the public to under stand the relevance to engineering is a big factor in recruitment and retention of students, especially girls.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by sammyjalex

Let's bring up what might be a sore subject.

The examples I chose might sound familiar - these are recent FLL challenges. We lose most girls after FLL. Coincidentally, our structure also changes dramatically in the move from FLL to FTC/FRC, from one in which research into and presentation of "real-world problems" take center-stage alongside the robot, to one in which we pull our hair out over robot performance. (Yes, I know the actual chronology of the programs' creation)

Could this shift be a contributing factor for our struggle keeping girls on our teams? Can we isolate the issue as the prominence of the robot game or the lack of "social change-motivated projects"?

I think FRC has the right focus on using "team sports" as the proper framework to attract the broader audience. FLL is more like a "game"; a "sport" generates more enthusiasm, and FRC is intended to use that enthusiasm to generate more STEM students.

Participation in girls sports has grown dramatically since the 1970s, to where they are almost equal with boys. One of the most interesting aspects is that girls participation is highest in two sports where the boys and girls train together in the same season track & field and cross country. (Almost all other sports have distinct girls and boys seasons.) So these sports show that girls can be attracted in droves to highly competitive activities.

I think the problem is not the structure of the organization but rather a tendency for who is on these teams now and how that affects the culture of the teams. Making the culture comfortable for girls will make them more happy to join.

[lamk]

In the world of medicine, girls are starting to dominate. Over half of a medical class nowadays are girls. When I went to medical school 30 years ago there is only 25 girls in a class of 150.
However in my girl's high school robotics club there is only one girl, my daughter. That's one of the main reason why I become heavily involved with the club.
Going to the championship in St. Louis has really inspired my daughter. I hope more girls have that opportunity.

[AndrewPospeshil]

One thing I want to point out is that just saying "omg don't just encourage girls to join encourage EVERYONE to join!" is a relatively fair argument for encouraging shy students to stand up and become leaders, but it doesn't help girls specifically at all. Really, most actions that aren't specifically aimed at helping girls join/stay with FIRST is going to lead to a decline. Because gender-neutral recruitment/encouragement really draws in mostly boys, as STEM is still a male-dominated field, and is seen as a "manly" thing. To encourage girls to become leaders in STEM you really have to bring them in specifically.

Now Monochron makes a very good point; recruiting girls because you need diversity or statistics or whatever is worthless. It tells them "we want you only to be able to say we have you, we don't actually care what you gain out of this." Which is very bad, obviously. But at the same time, just gathering people to FIRST teams yields mostly guys in most cases. A masculine-associated activity is not going to bring many women unless you destroy the stigma that building is for men. There is no blanket solution for bringing girls into FIRST because girls are vastly different people and aren't some "species" to "understand." The simple answer is to encourage girls as individuals, and don't make them join because they're female and you need females (for your purposes), but for them to challenge themselves, get benefits that men have that they might not have before, and so they can get the full advantage afforded to them (for THEIR purposes). Even if you just have each girl on your team bring one or two of their friends onto the team next year, this can have a positive effect because these girls will be joining the team already knowing they have a friend or two, and won't be completely alone.

TL;DR: Make girls understand that this is an incredible opportunity. Don't recruit them because they're female, recruit them because everybody deserves to be a part of FIRST.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil

Because gender-neutral recruitment/encouragement really draws in mostly boys, as STEM is still a male-dominated field, and is seen as a "manly" thing.

I see what you mean with this point, but I would argue that gender neutral recruiting can be just as effective as long as it is done right. Case in point, at one of our recent open houses I made a point to speak with most every girl who came by and give them more personal attention than the average boy. I asked them all what they are interested in, what they like to do, and what other teams or activities they participate in. Basically, I made the conversation much more personal with them and was able to pick out a few of their interests and say "Oh, we really need people interested in <blank> on our team" and list a couple examples of tasks/projects in that area. My goal was to make them feel necessary and needed and that their interests are incredibly valuable to us; that we need their passion.

This is my general approach with boys as well, but I make a more concerted effort with girls because I know of the societal prejudice pushing them away.

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil

The simple answer is to encourage girls as individuals, and don't make them join because they're female and you need females (for your purposes), but for them to challenge themselves . . .
TL;DR: Make girls understand that this is an incredible opportunity. Don't recruit them because they're female, recruit them because everybody deserves to be a part of FIRST.

Well said, I think we agree

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Monochron

I see what you mean with this point, but I would argue that gender neutral recruiting can be just as effective as long as it is done right. Case in point, at one of our recent open houses I made a point to speak with most every girl who came by and give them more personal attention than the average boy. I asked them all what they are interested in, what they like to do, and what other teams or activities they participate in. Basically, I made the conversation much more personal with them and was able to pick out a few of their interests and say "Oh, we really need people interested in <blank> on our team" and list a couple examples of tasks/projects in that area. My goal was to make them feel necessary and needed and that their interests are incredibly valuable to us; that we need their passion.

Interesting. I could support this approach, but this is the exact definition of non-gender-neutral recruiting to me (since the techniques vary by gender, regardless of whether it's articulated to them as such). I suspect from his post that this is Andrew's definition as well.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Siri

Interesting. I could support this approach, but this is the exact definition of non-gender-neutral recruiting to me (since the techniques vary by gender, regardless of whether it's articulated to them as such). I suspect from his post that this is Andrew's definition as well.

Definitely. Ignoring the disparity and prejudices against females in STEM activities is going to exclude people (those girls) who could really benefit from the program. I like to think of my technique as a gender-neutral approach applied in a non-neutral way

What I am getting at is that the actual discussions you have with students (or the "media" that you put out) about your team should not include their gender at all. Doing so often alienates people more than it makes them feel included or motivated. Where you focus those discussions however should be based on which students face the most barriers to entry.

[Moon2020]

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. We have to appeal to a female student's passion to care/want to help and show her how her personal skills add to making the world a better place for everyone. (As a female engineer, I am personally driven by and strive for positive impact; it is what motivates me and satisfies me as an engineer.)

While the other parts of FRC are also important, I personally want to see more of the female FRC students with their hands on the create/design/build of the robot.

Yes, there is something to be said to what sammyjalex posted: I was just in a meeting yesterday where software was being discussed as the first topic, and there were about ten women in the room. The second meeting topic was a technical design, and there were only three women in the room - me being the only technical woman of the three who had been a member of the design team (there were three other women involved with the design, but they were not at the meeting). The other two women in the room were admin assistants.

[Toa Circuit]

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil

One thing I want to point out is that just saying "omg don't just encourage girls to join encourage EVERYONE to join!" is a relatively fair argument for encouraging shy students to stand up and become leaders, but it doesn't help girls specifically at all. Really, most actions that aren't specifically aimed at helping girls join/stay with FIRST is going to lead to a decline. Because gender-neutral recruitment/encouragement really draws in mostly boys, as STEM is still a male-dominated field, and is seen as a "manly" thing. To encourage girls to become leaders in STEM you really have to bring them in specifically.

Now Monochron makes a very good point; recruiting girls because you need diversity or statistics or whatever is worthless. It tells them "we want you only to be able to say we have you, we don't actually care what you gain out of this." Which is very bad, obviously. But at the same time, just gathering people to FIRST teams yields mostly guys in most cases. A masculine-associated activity is not going to bring many women unless you destroy the stigma that building is for men. There is no blanket solution for bringing girls into FIRST because girls are vastly different people and aren't some "species" to "understand." The simple answer is to encourage girls as individuals, and don't make them join because they're female and you need females (for your purposes), but for them to challenge themselves, get benefits that men have that they might not have before, and so they can get the full advantage afforded to them (for THEIR purposes). Even if you just have each girl on your team bring one or two of their friends onto the team next year, this can have a positive effect because these girls will be joining the team already knowing they have a friend or two, and won't be completely alone.

TL;DR: Make girls understand that this is an incredible opportunity. Don't recruit them because they're female, recruit them because everybody deserves to be a part of FIRST.

Agreed mostly.
If a team is 90% boys and 10% girls, whatever. If that's the opposite, whatever. If it's equal, whatever. A good program is a good program regardless of how many males or females it has involved. A program that focuses on equality is prone to produce those 'token minorities', and that's even worse since it leads to further enforcement of stereotypes and demeaning of individuals. A segregated approach to recruiting only leads to segregation, in my experience.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Toa Circuit

Agreed mostly.
If a team is 90% boys and 10% girls, whatever. If that's the opposite, whatever. If it's equal, whatever. A good program is a good program regardless of how many males or females it has involved. A program that focuses on equality is prone to produce those 'token minorities', and that's even worse since it leads to further enforcement of stereotypes and demeaning of individuals. A segregated approach to recruiting only leads to segregation, in my experience.

I think you're missing the point of this discussion. Currently women are underrepresented dramatically (not just ~45%) and their is a dearth of girls in the STEM education pipeline. The point is not to focus on a final objective with a fixed % (a failure of the Title IX sports program enforcement in my view), but rather to focus on WHY girls aren't participating. Having a "good program" that continues to do what it did in the past and is still 90% boys is actually a failure by this measure. What we need to do is to change the culture of these programs. This probably means reigning back the brashness of many of the boys who like to join robotics teams and then feed each others' egos. It means focusing on improving social networks and events on the teams. There will be side benefits--many of these boys will have improved social skills as well as better technical knowledge.

Acknowledging that current behavior by boys on these teams can be driving away girls may be uncomfortable for some, and teen age boys don't like to be told that they should reconsider how they behave and interact. But that's what is as the core of changing the FRC culture.

[caboosev11]

Probably one method that's taken for granted is telling girls that STEM activities isn't just for boys. Most of the time, they have doubt and would probably feel like there aren't any other girls in the team. Give an example of a girl in the team who has made massive contributions. It does work.

[Cynette]

Originally Posted by sammyjalex

Let's bring up what might be a sore subject.

A number of studies http://advances.asee.org/wp-content/...ssue02-p11.pdf show through qualitative survey and observation that girls demonstrate more consistently positive attitudes toward science and technology when applications demonstrate the social value of the field - the fight against disease, geriatric care, managing natural disasters, or modifying the food we eat. The reasoning is consistently used to discuss the rising numbers of women in biology, environmental science, and even biomedical engineering as opposed to the stagnantly low numbers in physics, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc. More recently, we are seeing computer science join the former category.

The example sees girls demonstrate more confidence and more positive attitudes than boys and even draws upon a handful of quantitative measures through which a sample of girls outperform boys.

This is fascinating! And makes sense! It would make the model for FLL perfect for attracting girls into STEM and FRC not as attractive for retaining them. Having this information could change the way we recruit young women. It never would have crossed my mind to highlight the altruistic aspects of FIRST as a hook and make the team support. technology introduction and even the enticement of scholarships a secondary benefit!

[tcjinaz]

Yes, FLL has come up with some socially interesting challenges that are effective in gender-neutral recruiting. They seem to have boiled down to a robot running around doing something that fit into an appealing story about doing good.

So, now, many high-end (and the capability is quickly moving down market) automobiles can detect, warn and even effectively react to and avoid collision hazards. What is more socially responsible than preventing accidents? That technology has been lying around FRC for years. Such things should be part of the appeal of FRC to the students, independent of gender

Perhaps FRC should not be a contact sport, but an avoid contact sport? Rig the bumpers, or no bumpers at all, with sensors that detect and report contact, and a scoring system that penalizes it? This end the inane arguments about the necessity of physical defense in the game (and the libelous assertions that any active (monetary) support of a pure offensive approach is heresy, and must be shouted down); true defense, as in the real business world, will be technology, finesse, influence and adaptability, not "my 6 CIM and n-speed gearbox will kick you your 4-CIM and n+1 speed gearbox around the field all day and into next week." The skills female humans exceed males at are "finesse, influence and adaptability." Let's reinforce the skills that are truly useful in life; muscular physical prowess is not something that counts in most commercial free markets or a corporate boardrooms. A lot of the aggression is necessary, some is required. Eviserating you opponent is not. Careful assessment of the player's motivations, and the ability to craft solutions where most of the parties involved win something near what they want, is what makes society better.

[JuliaGreen]

The Killer Bees have had a team of 50% male and 50% female for the last three years. Here is what we do:

1. Recruit from FLL. These students already know FIRST and the fun of challenges and competitions.

2. Recruit students who were not in FLL. Some of these students have deep experience in how things work and they may have been in another program in middle school (Destination Imagination, VEX, other robotics programs, Science Olympiad, etc.)

3. Sell the program to the parents. The reality is that we need the parents to drive their students to and from meetings for about 2 years. If the parents are sold, then the students will be too. Some things we make sure the parents know about include the money for scholarships, the internships available to high school students, the skill development, the real-world applications of math and science, the reference letters our mentors will write for the students, the sense of belonging to something bigger than yourself, the list goes on. And we work with the parents of our student leaders to make sure they know what the time commitment is.

4. We have the students go recruit other students. The students arrange to demonstrate the robot during lunch periods, during the freshmen "meet and greet", during the last few days of the school year at the middle school and any other school event we can get to with the students and the robot. This has been our "secret sauce" in getting more girls to join the team. We send our current team members (girls and boys) and they go talk to their peer groups and the peer groups that are several years younger.

5. We do demonsrations in our community. When we are at an event, our students talk to everybody. "What high school do you think you will go to? School ABC? That's great - they are Team number xyz and their website is at .....com. You should make sure to contact them. "

Once we have them recruited, this is how we retain them:

Team selection: We initially prioritize selecting freshmen and sophomores for the team. This way, we have a chance to teach them over multiple years and we get a chance to know them well. Sometimes, we will have students apply to the team as juniors/seniors - and by then, we need these upperclassmen to be experts. We view this as a 4 year experience.

At our initial meetings, we throw everyone out of the CAD/software/media rooms and put them in the shop. We have the upperclassmen show the NewBees how to make a bracket. In fact, we call them "Freshmen Brackets". Some of these brackets end up on the robot. In 2014, every student made a part for the robot. All 42 of them. Even the "Chairman's"/PR team.

During their initial year on the team, we don't assign students to a subteam. We used to do this and when we did exit interviews with the students, we have been told that "You put me on the electrical team and I hated it. I wanted to program". We have an open structure where the team leads can have any number of students help them with a project or task and those students learn skills and concepts they might not have had a chance to learn before. This way, students learn across the spectrum - electrical, mechanical, machining, programming etc. We strongly believe in having students teach other students. If you teach it, you know it. And we do this year-round. Student are expected to participate in all 4 seasons (Fall - Pre Season, Winter - Build, Spring - Competition, Summer - Preparation)

How does this get girls on the team and to stay on the team? Because they see that they can participate equally with any other student. We select leaders for our team who will do the best job. Because of this skill development, we have had had a 100% female drive team this year. Last year it was 33% female/66% male. In 2012, the drive team was 100% male. Next year it will be different.

Especially when the NewBees are in the shop, the mentors will make sure everyone is comfortable. Some of the machines are scary. They go out of their way to show everyone how to properly operate the machines and they may need to do this more than once. They know that if they can get the students interested in what happens in the shop, then the students are hooked on this program and will stay. When we do have students leave the team before graduation, it has been from the group of students who do not have an interest in building the robots.

During our wrap-up at the end of every meeting, every group reports on what they did. Most of the time, we make the newest Bee "stand and deliver" and the student leaders help guide them. This builds confidence in knowing what you are talking about. The team leaders make sure to give some type of positive feedback to the group in front of the rest of the team.

This is our system that we have developed over many years. It works for us.

TL; DR
Do we specifically recruit girls to our team? Yes, we do.
Do we specifically recruit boys to our team. Yes, we do.

Julia